• Come on John, let it go. Clearly you are needed to continue as an important voice on Arbcom...Modernist (talk) 17:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• I don't know which makes me more nauseous -- top editors who fluff up a simple statement under workload stress but then can't put it right with a simple commonsense correction and half the functionaries team in unison, or the ignorant crowd who know something complex is up, instantly claim bad faith, conspiracies and how "someone must lose the bits", then post cynically how much they shouldn't go, when the very arbs they were slamming do fall on their swords.

  Lesson here. Big box because I don't think some people got it last dozen times. Read my lips.

Every year our best users go into Arcom to try and keep extreme problems from disrupting editing. You vote them in as good people, then curse, spit at them, magnify everything they do wrong into bad faith and conspiracy, lambast them for everything possible, expect them to reach consensus in minutes and disclose everything however non-public, and expect perfection under all circumstances. The same people now objecting to resignation were the very ones who caused it. MZMcBride, you posted this this. Are you happy that you got a resignation from the drama you stirred? Perfection isn't going to happen. Not here, not anywhere. Arbcom will make a major mispost, misruling, or poor action, a few times a year. It will take time to sort out. Deal with it. Try this strategy next time: Assume good faith. There are 50 functionaries, we're fiercely independent of Arbcom, and part of our job is to catch Arbcom mistakes when they happen, and discuss them. Forcefully at times. We do that job thoroughly. Wait, and quietly ask for information. Arbcom is not your emergency response team. They work as a Committee, and can easily take a day or two to reach a decision just because they have to round up a majority and get agreement. Do not assume. Do not assume bad faith. Do not call for heads and stir conspiracy theories. Thank you.

All said.

John, get back to work. Others who didn't assume good faith, learn from it.

FT2  17:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

FT2, I think you missed Skomorokh's point. Thatcher 17:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't miss that he was one of those in the door with a statement that was readable as bad faith. But on review it wasn't and I've removed it. Forgive me at being pretty sickened by these events. FT2  17:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

No, he was replying to a suggestion that Arbcom should have posted an explanation of the removal in advance, by noting that would have immediately called further attention to the allegedly damaging statement that was slated for removal. Thatcher 17:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Let me respond since I have been called out specifically here. ("Skomorokh, you posted bad faith and implied worse. Now you got your wish, you now post your regrets about John resigning."). My comment "If they had done so, we would have all rushed to familiarize ourselves with the information that they wanted no-one to be familiar with", was an explanation to Coffee of the drawback to pre-announcing the hiding of the material regarding David Gerard; namely that it would have publicised it. My comment took no position as to whether or not the end – hiding the information – was worthy or not, just that that means would have been ineffective. It contained no bad faith or implication thereof on the part of the Committee, unless one thinks of Oversight as innately wrong. I agree with the thrust of your post, FT2, which is why I was very surprised to see you jump in with unwarranted assumptions regarding my character and intentions. Sincerely,  Skomorokh  20:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I replied to FT2 here. Apologies for not using bold font and black boxes—I suppose the substance of my post will have to stand on its own. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• I see not much fault of John in this affair, and no reason for him to resign. Unless he ordered the oversighting, of course. — Kusma 17:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not going to pretend I can force John to take up his oar again, but I want to be one more voice ponding on thatcher's principle above - if making one mistake means leaving the committee, everyone left on the committee will be either timid ("We can't act if it might be seen as a mistake") or arrogant ("We don't make mistakes"). It's better to have people who realize that mistakes happen (hey, it happened to you) and act to avoid making them (which is best done by people who have experience in the consequences of not doing so). The sacrificial lamb routine doesn't benefit the community or the Committee. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• John, come back, as has been said many many times already, this is not all on your shoulders. Don't act like it is. I think this is the first time I've ever seen actual unanimous consent about something on this site. Please respect that. Hersfold 17:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
• Resignation not accpeted. It is not the job of the ArbCom to forsee what the community will like or be happy with, and act in accordance with that. Neither is it the job of ArbCom to forsee what the community will dislike, and go along with that. It is the job of the ArbCom to make the hard decisions the community is incapabale of making, without regard for the general acceptance of that decision. Screwing something up once does not make you a bad person, who must resign. FT2's summary is excellent. Now get back to work arbitating cases. --Jayron32 17:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
• Please don't? I'm too pressed for time lately to write anything terribly eloquent, especially when others have made the points so well... but your resignation seems entirely unnecessary (barring some huge RL reason, of course). Kafka Liz (talk) 18:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
• Again a small voice but sheesh. I'll agree with FT2 that people attack the committee to an extreme that can lend itself to this but it still doesn't explain it. People make mistakes, there is not a single person who could be on the committee and not end up making mistakes that are regrettable in the end. Even the most careful will likely end up being to careful and causing issues elsewhere, it's inevitable. To have someone resigning after every mistake like this? All it does is make it appear that everyone who spouts their mouth off about the absurdity of arbcom is right. Is everything done perfect? No, can it improve tremendously still? Of course, but it's an important and needed group that at least I think is getting better and I'm sure others agree even when they think it has big things to fix still. While I'm not sure how easy it IS to reverse your decision (especially since I know you already resigned OS/CU since thats what brought me here) but if it is possible I implore you to rethink. We have 8 spots open already in the arbcom elections and at least in my opinion we desperately need SOME experience and continuity on the board as we move. So yea otherwise and to try and avoid more of the lecture I want to write here, per thatcher and a bunch of people above me. Jamesofur (talk) 18:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
• Resignation not accepted I've got to pile on here to the clear consensus. Nobody thinks this was your fault, and admitting your mistake with a good faith attempt to not do it again is all that should be required. Nobody wants you to go. The Wordsmith 18:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
• Very, very unfortunate that it ended up this way, but I'm not surprised by the outcome. I would prefer John to stay on, he has done a great job as an arbitrator and functionary. - Mailer Diablo 19:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• John: look above, and see that your decision is not a decision that is supported by the community (sigh...). Get back in the saddle, or, if you really have doubts about whether you still have community trust, put your name in the election in the next couple of seconds, so you can see what the community really thinks. --Dirk Beetstra 19:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Seriously? Resigning because you wrote a draft that pretty much all the other active Arbs agreed with? I can't imagine anyone thinking that this is necessary (obviously none of the posters here do) so I must suspect this is part of the back-door-deal brokered by Godwin (who, as noted, was not acting in his professional capacity....). I'm highly disgusted with certain WMF members. Karanacs (talk) 19:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

At no point did Mike call for the resignation of anyone. Please don't lay the blame on him for this. Hersfold 20:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. By your own admission, you took an action that was "less than ideal." That is not at all the stuff ArbCom resignations are made of, and quite frankly to resign under these circumstances (or at least what I understand of them) sets a rather crappy precedent. If you simply want to resign simply because you want to that's okay (though not remotely desirable—from what I've seen you've done well and we could really use your continued service), but then say that's why you are resigning, rather than linking your resignation to this episode that literally no one thinks it is worth resigning over. If this were an AfD I was closing I would ignore your resignation rationale as poorly thought out and not based in policy, meaning you'd be stuck with this Arb job unless you come up with a better excuse to get out of it. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• I appologize for not falling in lockstep, but have I missed something? Calling for anyones head without facts is inappropriate. At the same time how can we grant absolution without facts? FT2's post says: Wait, and quietly ask for information. Speaking for myself that's where I am. Awaiting for a clear and honest answer as to what has gone on here.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Really, we should be talking at this point about all of the arbitrators resigning - they all signed off on this fiasco, as Karanacs points out - but I think John deserves praise for taking responsibility. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Seeing as how December appears to be "Drama Month" at WP, I guess I'll go ahead and post my thoughts here just so I'm not left out. First and foremost - @ John V. Hey, we are often woefully short on intelligent, mindful, respectful, and mature folks willing to tolerate some pretty foolish things here and try to make a positive impact. I'd ask you to please reconsider, and perhaps after a bit of a break from it all to please continue doing the good work that you do. If you have simply had enough of the BS, and wish to walk away from it all - I can't say that I'd blame you, but I hope that's not the case; and perhaps a bit of down-time to recharge would allow you the determination to return. In regards to the David G. matter: my perception is that a high level wikipedian posted some info off-site that is assumed to have been acquired through a privileged tool (CU). If this is the case, then it's likely best that David give up that tool for the time being. Now, ... we elect a small group of folks to oversee various problems here at WP (ArbCom), and we chose those people because we trust them to have a high degree of integrity, dedication, and clue. When something comes to light - we scream "tell us, tell us NOW, TELL US NOW!" Ummm .. ok, well, I guess we need to decide if we want "NOW" or if we want "Right". Sometimes getting it right takes a bit of time. Research and all - ya know? Hey, I'd rather wait a bit and get the "right" information, than to have "Paparazzi" type rumors as the de facto "position". From my perspective this all seems to be filled with sound and fury ... (you know the rest), and I'd be just pleased as a kitten at feeding time if we've reached the conclusion of this little melodrama.

AC is more often than not in uncharted waters, as such, I'm happy to watch the whole thing mature, and grow. It seems to me that they've come a long way - and working without a net (and on the fly) at that. To be honest, I'm rather impressed. I appreciate the work, dedication, and willingness to "take one for the team" efforts put forth by these folks willing to volunteer their time here. Volunteer? ... umm .. oh, yea - that's right huh? They didn't get that big pay raise this year did they? Oh well, I'm sure it will all evolve in the fashion that it should - so I'll just close by offering my very best holiday wishes to each and every one of my fellow Wikipedians here. Time on this planet is short folks - enjoy what you have today, because it may be gone tomorrow. Best regards to all. — Ched :  ?  20:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Two days into the month and it's Drama Month already? Hoo boy... bibliomaniac15 21:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I didn't mean this particular issue - just that I've heard (and read) that December in past years tends to go that direction. I'm always open to being pointed to links that might offer me some better insight. To be honest - this whole thing seems a bit OTT, but far be it for me to judge. I mean really - a blog? an announcement of tool removal gets deleted so it can be reworded? And we get all this attention? Wow - just seems so excessive to me. To me this whole thing seems like a "Mountain - meet molehill" type of deal. Just IMHO. — Ched :  ?  21:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• No. But if you do, see below. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
• Not accepted. Mistakes happen. Preventable mistakes happen. That's life. Ks0stm 22:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
• How about No: Neither putting out a notice that the subject objected to, nor using a finangle to get the mess temporarily under the rug, nor taking the lawyer's advice when a plea settlement was proposed, was such a serious error as to warrant resignation. They're just your average fuck up at the top level in an organisation. Thatcher put it well, we need people who will stay and learn.Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
• So you fucked up a bit. This is clearly a temporary condition not chronic. As much as I like arbs admitting when they have made a mistake, I don't think they should resign at the drop of a hat. Viridae 00:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
• I fully understand why you would want out of ArbCom. It's a pretty thankless job. That being said, you're a good arbitrator and if you were on the ballot this year, you'd likely be elected again. I hope you change your mind, but understand if you don't. Do what's right for you, what we want doesn't really matter. AniMate 01:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• Accepted with regret. Sometimes when you make a mistake with major consequences, stepping away from the situation can be the best way to reduce primary or secondary harm or drama to yourself and others. I think it's pretty obvious that your decision to resign falls into this category. As such, it is an honorable one. Should you decide to run again in 12/2010 or later, I think you will find your community standing much higher than if you had stayed and the situation gotten more dramatic than it already is. As a bonus, the community will now benefit from all your free time that you can now spend editing and administrating :). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• Add me to the list of people who don't think this resignation is needed or a good idea. I'm no sycophant for the committee or any individual member, not even my favourite members. Still, this situtation does not merit resignation. It merits learning on John's part and the committee's as a whole, no less than that, but not resignation by John. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• John, I join the chorus of users who don't want you to retire. As others have said, there's clearly a community consensus against it! I think you should consider the door open—at least until the new arbs are announced—and if there's ever a vacancy, I would argue that your mandate has not expired. You resigned in good standing as far as I am aware, and this arbitrator will always welcome you back. Cool Hand Luke 16:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• FWIW, John put me on the cc where he said he would be doing this. I suggested that he not, and that he should at least stick around to welcome the 2010 AC intake; and if he was that burnt out on it, there's WMAU. I suspect burnout is a fair bit of it (arbitration tends to burn people out), and rest is good in any case - David Gerard (talk) 17:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• John, I know how hard you've worked on the Committee this year, and how many good things you've done. Many times it's not been easy, and yet you've come through. I have a feeling that your first love, Wikisource, is eager to welcome you home with open arms if you don't reconsider, but you have a home here too. Risker (talk) 17:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• Resignation Trout Smacked. Which is all and everything it deserves. • Ling.Nut 00:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I have a proposal, should jvb not be persuaded to unresign

By means of an Extraordinary Proposal by the Community of the English Language Misplaced Pages, that the present Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009 shall be extended, by reason of the support shown herewith, for the inclusion of the Candidate John Vandenberg (talk · contribs), to serve on the Committee for the duration of his original term only.

1. Proposer. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
2. Well, as I suggested something similar above .. Support. --Dirk Beetstra 21:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
3. Support per my own comments on JV's talk page. We have had a number of arbitrators resign recently, sometimes for reasons some of us find less than sufficient. I can and to an extent do applaud the integrity of those who have resigned, but at the same time think that it does weaken the ArbCom when such individuals do resign, particularly if the reasons are questionably sufficient. I told him that I think the best way to proceed in matters like this might be, if the situation occurs close enough to an election, for the individual to stand for a confirmation election. I honestly believe that is probably the best way to proceed, but we would need to see if it could work, and it is hard for me to imagine a situation which would allow us to find out which would be better than this one. In this case, the election would be to fill the remainder of his term, I would think, and if he were to lose the individual getting the fewest votes of those getting sufficient to be seated would be the one to take his place. If all the seats are filled, of course. That would strike me at least as being the fairest way to go. John Carter (talk) 21:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, speaking with my coordinator hat on here, and I suspect the other coordinators would agree with me, changing the election midstream is a bad idea. If we had due process, it would be a violation per se.--Tznkai (talk) 21:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

We have far too much buggering about with changing what elections are for already, and should have less (or ideally none). He's resigned - most of us are not allowed to know what exactly happened, and so cannot reasonably comment on whether or not his resignation is appropriate, and resignation should mean on Misplaced Pages what it means in any other walk of life. Making up new rules to enable a candidate you like isn't in any way a good thing. He can stand next year if he likes, but not this. DuncanHill (talk) 21:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Also worth noting that we already have a lot of voters who have already voiced their opinion, who would in a real sense, be disenfranchised, if only temporarily if they're aware of the new candidate.--Tznkai (talk) 21:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, truly, for the comments from the ACE09 co-ordinators, but I understand that your role is to administer the poll in the format(s) that are decided upon. If the Community decided it is appropriate for the poll to be extended, acting through whatever medium it has, then the coordinators have the choice of complying or resigning (and you should know that I am really against resignation over principles only). As ever with my proposals, this does not appear to be gaining much of any traction so the point may be moot - but I am uncertain why someone should volunteer for a job that has inherent problems, and then complain that someone wanted to change one of the problems at a late stage... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I will say that the proof of consensus I would need to be satisfied to change an election midstream in this way is very, very, high. Like, verbal assent from 90% of these people high. If you want a democratic litmus test for inviting Jayvdb to take his arb-fez back, I think a different venue would work a lot better. I have no problem with solving problems in general, but this suggestion seems to actually threaten the legitimacy of the vote and the accuracy of the mechanism.--Tznkai (talk) 21:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Is that not happening already, there is an extra seat to fill. How many candidates and how many remaining arbitrators do we have? --Dirk Beetstra 21:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Remember the public outcry around the "AUSC alternate"? Let's keep things as they were set. As far as I know, Jayvb can be re-seated if he chooses to, no? –xeno 21:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Speaking as a coordinator, I am strongly against accepting candidates after the nominations have closed. Last December, John was elected to a three year seat, of which he pledged to serve two years. Per precedent, he can unresign and see out his term without needing to run as a candidate again. The issue of replacing resigned arbitrators is not one that to my knowledge the community has come to consensus on. As such, the appointments as a result of the December 2009 elections will, ultimately, be in the hands of Jimbo Wales. If you have any questions about this, please ask them at the election talkpage.  Skomorokh  21:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Per my response to Tznkai, above. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's just not bother with having any prior rules for elections, it just confuses people if they know in advance what they are voting for..DuncanHill (talk) 21:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I actually have no dispute with the above. The question, to my eyes, isn't so much about resignation. Clearly, anyone is free to leave at anytime, we all know that. However, if someone does resign as the result of calls for their head, as it were, and not for personal reasons, I think the better option would be to allow them to have a vote of confidence come the next election, if that election is shortly thereafter. They might even, if it is only a brief time, recuse themselves for the duration of the time till the election results. Granted, the other page might be theoretically the better place to post this, but I have a feeling this page is being watched a bit more closely right now, so hope you don't mind if I do a little soapboxing. John Carter (talk) 21:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

No worries, I see where you're coming from. But this is not a resignation I'd characterise as "under a cloud", and looking up this page is all the verification of confidence we would need, I'd expect.  Skomorokh  21:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Tznkai and xeno. Let's take the drama out of this, please. John, why don't you quietly return to your post now ... there is too much to be done, and we need stability, especially at election time. Tony (talk) 06:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• In a purely selfish way, I will happily accept his resignation and invite him back to a place where we have forbidden drah-mah, hyperbole, and retribution; and where he is always appreciated. Come home John!!! billinghurst (talk) 11:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• I, too, hope that John will reconsider his resignation.   Will Beback  talk  20:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

David Gerard: statement by ArbCom

Announcement

Have DG and MG approved of this new statement? I'd hate for this carousel to start again. –xeno 20:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes.  Roger Davies 20:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The weakness of this is that you have not "suppressed an announcement and two discussions", you have merely expunged them from Misplaced Pages's records. I have the text of these, as have others,, and I could (but won't) repost them at will. Reposting them would not be libellous as I'd merely be reporting what arbcom decided the other day and, in any case, have not, so far, retracted. If arbcom made a statement implying facts about David Gerard that they either regret, or miscommunicated what they wanted to say, then the correct response is not suppression (which is impossible) but retraction, clarification and, if necessary, apology. Whatever legal advice you have been given seems pretty questionable.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Unless this approach was the one that David Gerard wanted. In that case, it could have been perfectly sound legal advice. But this is all speculation. Steve Smith (talk) 20:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

S'pose. But what happens when we write the article David Gerard blog controversy?--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The announcement as previously posted by arbcom was in my strong opinion not libellous and fair comment on DG's actions. More to the point, I feel the Arbcom should be clarifying MG's involvement as a matter of urgency given the alleged emails that have come to light. Really, this is the first time I've been properly disappointed with this incarnation of Arbcom, and really hoped that they would show a bit more spine. If DG takes actions that lead others to make fair comments such as those made by Arbcom in the suppressed announcement, he and only he is responsible for the harm done to himself. Brilliantine (talk) 20:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

David demanded a full retraction and apology, or oversight, and he demanded it in a hurry because Cade Metz was sniffing around. Arbcom doesn't do hurry under the best of circumstances, and here there were significant disagreements about whether or not a retraction was even deserved, much less how to word it. So the comments were oversighted instead. Thatcher 20:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for this information. It doesn't change my view but helps me empathise with Arbcom members slightly more. Brilliantine (talk) 21:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

This statement does not address half of the issues, and actually makes it appear that ArbCom still has something to hide. Clarification about Mike's involvement is needed, as well as a clear statement about the claims that emails have been leaked from the functionaries mailing list. Tiptoety 20:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

We know that somebody who was on arbcom-l was leaking e-mails until former arbs were removed from it. That person is presumably now on functionaries-l, since that's where former arbs went. It can hardly be surprising that that list is now leaking. Steve Smith (talk) 20:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Emails were leaked, and? Kelly Martin apparently has a source of insider information too. Unless you can persuade Cade or Kelly to disclose their sources, I'm not sure what else can be done. Thatcher 20:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting action, just a lack of shock at the leak. Steve Smith (talk) 20:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty clear to me that Kelly Martin has a penchant for making things up, even if Martin happens to have actual emails. Martin has asserted, I understand, the proposition that I forced Arbcom to remove the original motion. Not only did I not do so, but that's not how I operate with regard to community matters. For the record, I came across a process that seemed to me to have gone off the rails, at least in some respects, and at nobody's request but my own, I spoke out about it, and ultimately was asked to try to mediate a resolution, which I then did. The goal was not to erase history (I'm not as stupid as I look), but simply to remove Arbcom's seal of approval on some problematic statements while at the same time preserving Arbcom's prerogatives and authority. Keep in mind that those who want to create a master negative narrative about this already have it in for Misplaced Pages, Arbcom, the Foundation, and the community -- yes, I'm talking about people like Cade Metz and Kelly Martin, whom I pity.MikeGodwin (talk) 06:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I may be mistaken, but I don't believe that Kelly has asserted any such thing. Steve Smith (talk) 06:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Martin's comment on Misplaced Pages Review, asserting that I had compelled Arbcom to censor its motion, was forwarded to me, Steve. It was a false statement of fact. MikeGodwin (talk) 14:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

"Kelly Martin has a penchant for making things up" ... "even if Martin happens to have actual emails". I can't be the only one who sees the evasiveness of that answer. Whatever I may think of Kelly Martin, she also has an amazing knack for getting her hands on embarassing information others would like to remain hidden (and some fantastically statements by her have in the past, with considerable effort, been capable of verification). Does Kelly have "actual emails" or not? If so, then any penchant of hers is irrelevant to their content. You seek to make a fairly fine distinction here as if it were a major point. No one is, as I understand it, saying that you wrote along the lines of, "I as foundation counsel require you to remove this comment." The criticism is that your words carry the weight of your position whether you intend them to or not. You apparently suggested that then ArbCom statement could be problematic from a legal point of view and you are the foundation's legal counsel. Your actions on David Gerard's behalf (whether or not they were at his request) effective forced a retraction from the Arbitration Committee and John's resignation. In the circumstances, I think it is understandable that people feel aggrieved. WJBscribe (talk) 00:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I want to offer my strong support for arbcom. I believe they acted rightly in the initial removal of permissions, and understandably in the face of intimidating talk of defamation (if the leaked e-mails are genuine). It is time to cut them some slack, but at the same time to urge then to clarify Mike's role, because the community may have something to say about their elected arbcom being leaned on (if indeed they have been). --Scott Mac (Doc) 20:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

While I am disappointed as I mention above, this does not diminish my support for Arbcom - and I am certainly more concerned with the way they have been apparently leant on than the ease with which they fell over. Brilliantine (talk) 21:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Brilliantine, if you actually look at existing policy, you'll discover that WMF counsel (at least in theory) has the authority to order the removal of material. But that's not how I operate, because I believe that ordering a fix is less good than persuading the community in question to change its mind. (Also, simple use of authority doesn't scale, yet it gives rise to the expectation that Foundation people will intervene here and there like Greek gods, which in my view is a bad expectation indeed.) I want to gently suggest that it is a very naive person who supposes that Cade Metz didn't selectively quote some emails and just as selectively omit to quote others, such as the ones in which I emphasized that, despite the mistake of using my .sig file on one message, I was speaking only for myself. Assume good faith. MikeGodwin (talk) 06:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Y'know, I wouldn't be surprised if a steward reinstated David's rights on the English Misplaced Pages. The request for removal was posted linking to a (now) vanished thread by a (now) former Arbitrator. I can't see how a request by David at Meta to have his rights restored could be denied.... --MZMcBride (talk) 21:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I on the other hand would be very surprised. The material is still visible to someone who can read oversighted revisions. But if you think a clarification is needed over at meta to the effect that the request was actually made, I suppose one could be added. ++Lar: t/c 21:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I somehow have to concur with Brilliantine here, something about just deserts seems to come into play here. True, I don't support putting anyone in harms way, regardless of their on or related off-wiki actions, but I remember seeing the post by Jayvdb, and there was nothing really libelious on it. Damaging to a reputation, sure, but I guess that's what happens when you fuck up. I'm not really sure what to think here. Seems a little too much like a cover up for me to be entirely comfortable with the outcome. Steven Zhang 21:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Um, "damaging to a reputation" is more or less the definition of "libellous" (provided that the material so-damaging is presented as factual). Steve Smith (talk) 21:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The material in question clearly qualifies as fair comment, in my extremely strong opinion. Brilliantine (talk) 21:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I would imagine the stewards could point to this latest statement given as backup given that it states that they still took away those rights? I'm not saying how much I agree with that but I could see the argument. Jamesofur (talk) 21:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• I don't understand; Did not the original statement record ArbCom's belief that David Gerard had acted contrary to the expectations of privacy, sensitivity, and confidentiality in respect of his access to certain priviliges, by means of him posting upon his own publicly accessible personal opinion website such information that could only come from either use of certain tools, or access to private mailing lists by similarly privileged persons, and, acting upon those beliefs, removed those privileged accesses? Has DG argued that ArbCom did not in fact believe that it was his impression that he had, or either that by disclosing information obtained from such privileges that he was not betraying the principles of confidentiality, privacy, and sensitivity that the privileges warranted? Or, does DG content that he didn't publish the comments referred to on his blog which lead to the ArbCom Statement detailing its belief that he transgressed the expected standards of conduct? What is it? I mean, no-one said that they were dancing upon the mascaraed head of the editor. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Revision deletion is reversible. I think ArbCom's decision to use it to de-escalate an escalating situation was reasonable; at worst it allows time for cooler heads to prevail. Steve Smith (talk) 21:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

If Gerard is worried that his reputation will be harmed or diminished because of his editing in WP, then the answer is pretty simple. Quit editing WP. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 21:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Circular logic much? - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 14:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• • Has anyone figured out why the usernames and edit summaries were also suppressed? It's my understanding that these things are configurable and that only the page text was disputed here. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
    • For the usernames and edit summaries, that is obviously simply that Risker has acted swiftly to remove everything, and kept the default values. A priori, I see no reason to not restore the usernames and most of the edit summaries — though I expect it would be wiser to wait for whole committee agreement first. — Coren  23:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The revdelete of the original announcement is understandable within Oversight policy. What interpretation of policy justified removal of the entire discussion threads? Was every post within them potentially defamatory? Isn't a basic principle of revdelete and oversight to remove no more than necessary? Durova 21:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• The removed threads directly referred to the content of the suppressed announcement, and we cannot redact only part of a thread without leaving revisions containing the text at issue. — Coren  23:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
• The story is out. Cla68 (talk) 23:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that one lesson here for the future is for ArbCom to decline to act on bad advice and dubious direction issued by employees of the Foundation. Cla68 (talk) 23:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The risk was to WMF. en.wikipedia isn't an entity that can be sued. There would be no mileage in suing the Arbs, as it would have to be done individually (there's no legal collective entity here either). WMF is the only legal entity, ergo the one that would carry the can. Not I think that the risk was great, but what risk there was rested with the Foundation. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The only risk to WMF results in allowing David Gerard continued access. The actions above and the chilling effect upon those who are directly protecting the private date of Wikipedians per our Privacy Policy is very dangerous. I hope that Mike Godwin issues a public apology and ensures that his actions in the future will not open up WMF to potential problems as his revealed statements surely do now. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I feel that Mike's persuasion has prevented a chilling effect. It's pretty simple. I'm a checkuser; I'm think I'm quite scrupulous about what information I release. If I said "I think you're a jerk, and the checkuser results I have here prove it", I've not violated anyone's privacy. I am, however using checkuser as a bludgeon, and ArbCom could very well consider that it was no longer appropriate for me to have that privilege. All very well and good. After what's just happened, though, I think ArbCom will be careful enough to not to publicly imply I'd acted with actual malfeasance; there's a serious difference between breaching Misplaced Pages community norms and breaching moral and/or legal rules. --jpgordon 03:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

That may be true, but that's not the big picture here. The big picture is that Mike Godwin inappropriately became involved in the issue, giving an appearance that he was doing so at least partly in his role as the Foundation's lawyer. Because of that, David Gerard and Misplaced Pages have now been publicly embarrassed in a much greater amount. Cla68 (talk) 04:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

...and open the floodgates to future claims. - Mailer Diablo 04:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

]. MBisanz 04:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea about David, but I think it's probably an exaggeration to say that Misplaced Pages has been embarrassed. In this bubble, it's easy to lose sight of the fact that very few people actually care deeply about this sort of thing. When I tell people that I spend time editing Misplaced Pages, they usually say something like: "Oh yeah - isn't it scary that people get medical information there?" Or "Right... Stephen Colbert and African elephants." Or "Well then, you should really fix the part where it says garlic is a cheap, natural cure for cancer." No one has ever - ever - said anything like: "Misplaced Pages?!?! That horrible place where one of the checkusers and oversighters had his rights removed by ArbCom, and then he thought their post on AC/N was defamatory, and then it got suppressed so that people COULDN'T EVEN SEE THE DIFFS, and then the FOUNDATION LAWYER emailed a few people about it on a OMG SECRET LIST that Wikipedians can't read at will..." Look: it embarrasses Misplaced Pages when we allow delusional or partisan agenda accounts to insert nonsense into our articles. That's the truth, but no one really cares enough to get worked up about it, because it's a "content issue". This, on the other hand, feels so much juicier and more meaningful... MastCell  04:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

On another note, I was browsing Google News, and two or three of the articles I read linked to the Misplaced Pages article about something that they were explaining. And these articles were written - gasp - after the post by The Register. J.delanoy_adds 04:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• That's because it was sent to and picked up by the Register, not Panorama. The closest Misplaced Pages came to public embarrassment by the mainstream media was two years ago, of which The Register was one of the first to pick up the story. We're fortunate in the sense that the mainstream media is busy covering with another Misplaced Pages story regarding the "exodus of editors", so they might give this a pass. At the risk of WP:BEANS, this affair might provide a very convenient explanation to their main story. - Mailer Diablo 13:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
  • The mainstream media reports on things that are interesting to the general public. This is not interesting, except to a small handful of highly immersed Wikipedians and Misplaced Pages-watchers. It can't be easily explained to a layperson, and the first reaction of anyone without a deep familiarity with internal Misplaced Pages politics is guaranteed to be "Huh? What? So?" The apparent decline of a top-ten website is an interesting story. A guy faking credentials is an interesting story with an easily grasped, universal dimension to it, and most of its notoriety came from the fact that he misrepresented himself to the New Yorker. This is different - it's arcane and I suspect it would be hard to explain it, much less convince anyone they should care. If this story isn't picked up by the mainstream media, I would at least consider the possiblity that it's because it's just not that important or interesting to anyone outside this bubble. MastCell  18:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Wait a second. Hold up... Reading this, did the WMF Lawyer actually make a legal threat against members of the Arbitration Committee that they might be personally taken to court for libel if they didn't comply? That's a pretty grave interference with an individual project! --Barberio (talk) 06:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

No. Advising people that they may be exposing themselves to legal liability from somebody unrelated to the person doing the advising is not, under any definition, a legal threat. Steve Smith (talk) 06:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It does seem to have been phrased in the 'Nice Place. Shame if something might happen to it.' kind of way, implying that if they didn't do what they were told then they would risk court. Not a direct threat, no. But it was hanging the risk of being taken to court over them if they didn't immediately do what he said. --Barberio (talk) 06:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

As Mike Godwin was not in a position to sue members of ArbCom or representing anybody who was, he would not be capable of making legal threats against them. It is possible to interpret his comments as a warning that they could be held liable to David Gerard, but, as Mike Godwin was not representing David Gerard, that is not a threat, anymore than by telling you your exposed wires are a fire hazard I am threatening to burn down your house. Steve Smith (talk) 06:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It came as apparently official word from the WMF Lawyer directing ArbCom to retract or there would be potentially dire consequences for them they he would not be able to defend them from. I'm sorry, but if it quacks, waddles, and has oily feathers, it's a duck. --Barberio (talk) 07:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Antecedents and consequents, Barberio. Given an animal who quacks, waddles, and has oily feathers, yes, it's likely a duck (although it MAY be a sick platypus). In this case, however, it barks, runs, and has a shaggy coat, so it isn't a duck, as Steve explained :) -- Avi (talk) 07:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Fact? And if anyone other than Godwin, ie some normal editor had made that claim? Are you seriously telling me people wouldn't claim a legal "threat" was made? Minkythecat (talk) 08:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

If a normal editor, in response to ArbCom's now revision-deleted announcement, had suggested that it was defamatory towards David Gerard and that members of ArbCom could be held liable for it, there is no way that that editor would have been blocked. Some people might claim that a legal threat was made but, as evidenced by this conversation, people need not have any reasonable basis for making such a claim. If an admin made such a claim and blocked on the basis of it, the block would quickly be undone and the admin trouted. Steve Smith (talk) 08:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I guess this is the point where numerous people jump up and down and yell about how terribly Arbcom, the Foundation, and sundry others have behaved, thereby melting much winter ice but not lighting the place up much. Let's not do that. A chap lost some privilege bits because the Committee, adid sundry other objections, said they didn't like the way he twittered. The Committee then rethought some of its own twitterings, these being of the on-wiki type, and took them back. Everybody's still speaking to everybody else and they're all acting like adults--which is as it should be. Now where's the problem again? --TS 07:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Godwin states that he was acting on his own, not per a request from Gerard or anyone at the WMF. So, I guess that's that for now. Cla68 (talk) 08:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• No. It's a matter of did the Arbcom request his advice? - yes or no. More woryingly is who briefed the Register with what was supposed ot be confidential information. There are only a few it could have been. I know where my money is.  Giano  08:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Which then feeds into the whole nature of Arbcom. Is it autonomous? Are decisions oversighted simply because "high profile" volunteers worry that Metz will look at the decision? If a WMF lawyer interjects himself into the situation with regards to a high profile editor, then where is the same "protection" for any "lesser" editors? DG, as I understand it has resigned as checkuser - which is far more "palatable" to himself and marketable than if said bits were removed / advocated for removal. The crux of the matter is did he misuse checkuser, break any relevant privacy laws? If so, there's only one solution. Anything else is merely a cynical attempt to cloud the issue. Minkythecat (talk) 08:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• As I see it: Gerard's pride was dented. A senior foundation employee made (however indirectly) unnerving and disconcerting posts (legal threats if you like) to the Arbs. The Arbs felt threatened and retracted. Gerard feels his pride is saved. Consequence: Gerard remains fired. The Arbcom looks stupid. We now know who is running the show and it sure as Hell aint the Arbcom  Giano  09:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

That's precisely it (and I don't often agree with Giano). All ten non-recused Arbs endorsed de-bittifying, as well as the statement that was issued. One of them is also a lawyer. Leaving aside what DG said/threatened or whatever.....Mike Godwin said that the way ArbCom had acted was wrong in that it didn't show due process. The "solution" he brokered - DG voluntarily resigns the tools, no statement is made, one of the Arbs draws the pearl handled revolver (Mike may not have suggested that, but I think we can all guess who made it a condition) - leaves ArbCom basically with nothing. Yes, what (miniscule) risk there was may have been to WMF, but I think he's actually made it worse for WMF in terms of risk, by clarifying who is actually pulling the strings.Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

A lawyer with the actual interests of Arbcom at heart, would however have understood that this wasn't necessarily a matter which required the full investigative weight of the audit subcom process, because it doesn't really involve checkuser tools. Rather it is about a senior member dragging en.wp into a pissing match with a 3rd party, thereby bringing the organisation into disrepute. In well run organisations, a suspension would follow, pending an investigation. The lawyer would recommended a limited maneuver basically calling DGs bluff, striking the issued statement (preferrably with some fudge about it not actually having been agreed for publication) but advising that a neutral statement will be issued only if he agrees to go quietly. If he doesn't, a full investigation will follow, and he'll have the tools took off him anyway while he is suspended. Thats what you keep a good lawyer around for. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• Just to make something extra, extra clear: nobody requested, or hinted, or suggested or even alluded to the departure of an Arb over this. In fact, John's resignation took everyone by surprise, and I deeply regret it. I do not believe it to have been warranted by the circumstances, and I wish he would reconsider. But, ultimately, the decision is his and his alone. — Coren  12:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid Coren, you can protest that as much as you lke, and very few people will beleive it. You all endorsed that statement. It is blatently obvious that Gerard's mates are running the show, and they have fooled a frightened and squirming Arbcom into revealing it. Gerard will soon have his rights restored by next year's Arbcom. Which will be a puppet committee because we all now know that the Arbcom is superfluous to requirements.  Giano  12:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Um, no. You've been perceptive, as usual, in this mess but everything in your previous assertion is exactly the opposite of reality. There is no way that the bits are coming back, and nobody "runs" ArbCom from without. There are a lot of people who push and whine to get their way, by threats, cajoling, sucking up, throwing fits and other forms of attempts at manipulation, some reasonably and some not so reasonably. And if this entire mess has a lasting result is that, in the future, such pushing will be even less likely to succeed. — Coren  15:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Coren, I'm afraid I have to agree with Giano here. While I know John well enough to know he would not lie and if he said it was his decision alone, it was, the burden of proof to show ArbCom was not influenced by the @wikimedia.org in Mike's email address when deciding to undo its own action is simply unmeetable. That of the 45 people listed on WP:FORMER, 14 on CheckUser, and 17 on OverSight, a WMF employee has never before informally and unofficially mediated between the Committee and the user in question. I highly suspect that in the future, users facing sanction by ArbCom will cite the lack of a "Mike Godwin due process review," as a reason why the decision is flawed/non-final and that they do not have to obey it since Mike could decide to review the decision and ask ArbCom to change it. And no, I don't know how to fix it either, since it would necessitate ArbCom overruling Mike on something and him not objecting in order to re-establish the concept of ArbCom finality and until yesterday, I had never even considered the possibility of unofficial employee interventions. MBisanz 13:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

You can't be serious. You believe that future users subject to sanction will demand a "Mike Godwin appeal"? That seems pretty unlikely to me... I think this entire thread, and all threads elsewhere, make a mountain range out of a teensy pimple. It was worth asking for more information way back at the beginning of all the drama, but at this point it's time for people to let go. Nathan 14:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Who said Mike Godwin did not influence the current events? I think that has been acknowledged several times already. Should that have happened? The answer to this is evident from the current thread. Will it happen again? Definitely not on my watch. — Coren  15:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

John himself was never discussed in any thread, nor ever raised by anyone as being personally at fault, and Mike's involvement in the discussion was (as best I recall) purely related to the statement and any action needed to prevent possible defamation. In the context of the entire discussion, the arbs are fairly independent, and also the functionaries list contains some 40 non-arbitrators who act as a rather independent double-check for Arbcom. There was a lot of discussion, and it wasn't initially clear which role Mike was speaking from (official, unofficial, community member, or colleague) which caused some confusion. I think this is fairly obviously worth getting clear in any future matter, and suspect that's a lesson learned by all. FT2  15:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• You seem remarkably well nformed FT2, which lists are you on to have this information?  Giano  16:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:ACE2009#Boycott, you can't go back and unmuddy the water. MBisanz 15:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Some basics:

1. Self-correction is desirable - The original statement was in good faith, but contained a possible issue. It is better to review than ignore. Things like that are going to happen from time to time and are not a "firing offence".
2. Oversight is applied first, discussed after - The norm for the oversight tool is to remove potential defamatory material first (to reduce risk of harm), then discuss at leisure, and (if needed) reinstate. Oversight was appropriate and was also discussed with the full functionaries team prior to Arbcom consensus.
3. Consensus takes time - Followup requires consensus on wording, especially if any initial wording had issues. A day or 3 to get almost a dozen users to review, discuss, and reach consensus on any revised wording is completely reasonable.
4. The community played a part - As Thatcher says, pressure of circumstance played a role. But the matter should never have been blown up on-wiki as it was. To that extent it's a number of users at WT:AUSC at fault for ignoring any time needed for review, consensus seeking, and amendment, and lack of good faith. Instead, some assumed bad faith and called for a nice (if unfounded) drama fest, despite the occasional wiser voice saying to stop and think.
5. If you call for heads, you may get them - This is the result of it. Conspiracy theorists aside most arbs are fairly principled. John's one of them. Next time maybe maybe some will think twice about assuming heads must roll, and wait quietly, and extreme voices will avoid bad faith.

FT2  13:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• FT2, you are incorrect in you sumary of fault. "it's a number of users at WT:AUSC at fault for ignoring any..." Are you aware that it was the Arbcom who posted a unanimous statemnt concerning Gerard. I know that shooting the messenger is a happy pass-time on Misplaced Pages, but your attribution of blame does rather cap all other such messenger-shootings. Your second statement "If you call for heads, you may get them" is staggering in its deflection from the truth. The resignation (head fell) becasue of uninvited and unwarrented interannce from M Goodwin acting on Gerard's behalf (for that is what he was doing). I think FT2, you need to read up a little more, before coming here and telling us that we are entirely to blame because we had the audacity and stupidity to comment. We are not serfs to be downtrodden by the employees of the founfation, their employers and friends.  Giano  13:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Omission of "To that extent it's a number of users" does rather change the meaning doesn't it? Do you make that kind of mistake in article citations? If not, please don't do it here. FT2  14:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by David Gerard

I love everyone. I suggest you all go write something. Assume better faith too. Be excellent to one another - David Gerard (talk) 13:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

What a person you are.  Giano  14:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I love even you too, Giano. And I remain a big fan of your contributions to Misplaced Pages. Assume good faith! - David Gerard (talk) 14:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Didn't someone once say "assuming makes an ass of U and me"? So no thanks, I'll stick with my powers of observation.  Giano  14:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

This won't affect my sincere admiration of your knowledge, research and writing - David Gerard (talk) 14:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Quite right, too. Continuing to insist that heads roll for this will only further damage the project. We need to pardon Nixon, so to speak, and move on. The Wordsmith 14:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment David, I hope you don't find your first response to it to be representative of the community's feelings. Your work is appreciated here, and I think your advice in this matter is good advice. 14:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Did you send a legal threat to Foundation staff? John Vandenberg 14:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

What a strange question. No. I would ask "why do you ask?" but that would only distract both of us from writing stuff - David Gerard (talk) 15:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I am confused. Is creating redirects now the essential component of "article writing" on Misplaced Pages as of now? Gerard has told people twice to write stuff, but I cannot find anything of actual merit within his contribs. Is there someone who could please help? Because I know that many, many of the people above are well known for their content writing but not once have I ever heard David Gerard's name among top content contributors. Yet, he is telling us to go write content while he himself has not. However, in looking through his contribs I see a lot of sarcastic and incivil edit summaries at many pages. Do these comments concern anyone else? Ottava Rima (talk) 15:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It is not a competition Ottava, we appreciate all of our contributions not just the ones made by our "top" contributors. 15:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but telling people to go work when those same people are already doing far more work is extremely rude and condescending. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Your observations are quite apposite. What I mean is that I shall be working harder on substantive content (as well as redirects, which are good because finding things is good) and I shall also be working on being much nicer to work with in this massively collaborative environment. I apologise if it came across as rude, I was not attempting to be self-righteous about my admittedly meagre contributions in recent months; I was attempting to gently contrast encyclopedia-building with the unfortunately querulous and bad-faith-ridden discussion on these pages; I expect the latter is unavoidable, but I hope that by emphasising encyclopedia writing we can get back to what brought us here and got us hopelessly addicted to encyclopedia-writing in the first place - David Gerard (talk) 15:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

David, if you keep your promise, then that would be for the best. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I shall sincerely be endeavouring to act much less of a raging arsehole, I assure you. Preferably not at all - David Gerard (talk) 15:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I honestly don't care about that. I was referring just to article writing. Unlike what Misplaced Pages Review claims, there are hundreds of thousands of pages to create and it would be nice if more people put an honest effort to start working on improving the encyclopedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep! - David Gerard (talk) 15:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I thank you for your counsel, 117.121.243.232, and shall give it due consideration - David Gerard (talk) 15:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll phrase John's question above in a slightly different way. "Did you ask, implicitly or explicitly, for the help of foundation staff in this matter?" --Joopercoopers (talk) 17:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

And if the answer were "yes", would you have a problem with that? Anybody in the world can ask Foundation staff for help in communicating with Wikimedia projects. I can do it, you can do it. David says he didn't do it (in case you missed that). But what if he had? What's the problem? --TS 22:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I want to see Mr. Gerard's answer to the question. Cla68 (talk) 22:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

He already gave it. Several times. One could assume good faith, of course, but where would that get us? All those fondly nursed conspiracy theories that keep the fires of hatred so hot would have to be dispensed with. --TS 23:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Not at all, I think it's easier to move forward from a situation the less aphotic that it is. Mike Godwin answered all the questions put to him about this very clearly and emphatically. Cla68 (talk) 23:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, . Definitely a victory for transparency - I can see why you were satisified with his response... WJBscribe (talk) 23:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

You know David, it strikes me that if there has been a distraction here from people writing content, it has been largely of your making. WJBscribe (talk) 23:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Signing up, with a large helping of AGF

In the sincere desire that something good come out of bad, I hereby dedicate every mainspace contribution I make this month to this controversy. Further, I pledge to concentrate on mainspace, rather than projectspace editing between now and December 31st.

1. As nominator --Dweller (talk) 16:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
2. Well, the second sentence. Though I expect to work on video issues and suchlike - David Gerard (talk) 17:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

1. Declined. I feel there is a false dichotomy between 'Projectspace' and 'Mainspace' work. Someone can do good work in both, we have very very few editors who only get involved in one. And there's substantial blurring between the two, is fixing up an article to prevent it's deletion, and debating against it's deletion 'Projectspace' or 'Mainspace'? I also feel it is rather insulting to tell people to stop "wasting time on Projectspace stuff and get back to making Mainspace edits". The 'Projectspace' stuff has a pretty big impact on our ability to do that 'Mainspace' stuff a lot of the time, and it's insulting to try and push editors out of 'Projectspace' when ever some embarrassing foul-up happens. --Barberio (talk) 18:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is disagreeing. However, I think the sentiment is that when people get too involved in the in-house drama, then sticking their nose back in mainspace and content production can be both therapeutic and a good reminder of what we are all about. Almost without fail, our best project space contributors are also veterans of article-writing and content production.--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Is the Arbitration Committee Noticeboard really the most on-topic place for this poll? It seems just a bit off topic here. 20:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)